coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Andrushivka, Zhytomyr region, Ukraine.
5.  By its judgment of 8 December 2000, the Andrushivka District Court awarded the applicant 700 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by Mr Y. It appears that this judgment became final and the enforcement proceedings were initiated. No further information about enforcement of this judgment is available.
6.  In February 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr against the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr (відділ державної виконавчої служби Богунського районного управління юстиції м. Житомира), alleging the latter’s inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 8 December 2000 and claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had sustained as a result.
7.  On 17 April 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her a total of UAH 450.39[1]. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.
8.  On 21 November 2003 the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr instituted enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, the latter transferred the enforcement writ to the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service (відділ примусового виконання рішень державної виконавчої служби Житомирської області) for enforcement.
9.  In the course of these enforcement proceedings the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service requested the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr to replace the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr with the local department of the State Treasury of Ukraine, as the debtor under the judgment of 17 April 2003. On 28 October 2004 the court rejected this request. The applicant did not attend this hearing.
10.  On 21 May 2004 the State Treasury of Ukraine replied, upon the applicant’s request, that the 2004 State Budget of Ukraine did not provide funds for payment of compensation for damage caused by officials of the State Bailiffs’ Service.
11.  Between July 2004 and April 2006 the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service several times terminated and resumed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 April 2003. By the decision of 18 April 2006, the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings of the judgment of 17 April 2003 on the ground that the debtor had been liquidated. Apparently the applicant did not appeal against this decision.
12.  The judgment of 17 April 2003 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the Vinnytsya Region.
5.  In October 2003 the applicant retired from military service.
6.  On 4 December 2003 the Military Court of Zhytomyr Garrison ordered the Military Unit A-2128 to pay the applicant 3,253 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in relation to his military uniform and UAH 51[2] in relation to court fees. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7.  In April 2004 the applicant sent by registered post the writs of execution to the Berdychiv Bailiffs’ Service, which on 26 April 2004 instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 28 January 2005 the court, following the request of the Bailiffs, replaced the original debtor in the enforcement proceedings by its successor, the Berdychiv Town Military Enlistment Office.
9.  In November 2006 the applicant received UAH 51[3].
10.  On 29 December 2006 the court, following the request of the Bailiffs, replaced the Berdychiv Town Military Enlistment Office by the Zhytomyr Regional Military Enlistment Office which was responsible for the former’s finances.
11.  The judgment of 4 December 2003 remains partially unenforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds.
5.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1925, 1920, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1934, 1931 and 1924 respectively. On 8 October 2002 the fourth applicant, Mr Milko Kalev Balev, passed away. By a letter of 10 April 2006 his wife, Mrs Maria Vasileva Baleva and his sons, Mr Vladimir Milkov Balev and Mr Kalin Milkov Balev, informed the Court that they wished to continue the present application in his stead. The remaining applicants live in Sofia.
6.  Prior to 1989 all nine applicants occupied leading positions in the Council of Ministers (the government) and the Bulgarian Communist Party (“the BCP”).
7.  On 9 July 1992 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office opened preliminary investigation against twenty-two former members of the Bureau of the Council of Ministers and the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the BCP, including the nine applicants and Mr A. Lukanov and Mr O. Doinov, whose applications relating to the same criminal proceedings were decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 and 2007 (Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 20 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II, and Doinov v. Bulgaria, no.68356/01, 27 September 2007). On an unspecified date the applicants were charged with abuse of office and misappropriation on the ground that between 1981 and 1989 they had participated in the adoption of decisions to provide financial assistance or extend loans, totalling 243,537,000 old Bulgarian levs, to foreign countries and political parties.
8.  Between July 1992 and February 1993 the prosecution authorities carried out a number of investigations.
9.  After February 1993 the criminal proceedings were stayed for undetermined periods of time on at least four occasions. The last such occasion was on 28 May 1995. The proceedings were resumed on 15 June 1999.
10.  By a decision of the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office of 28 January 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated. The prosecution found that the actions of the accused, including the nine applicants, had not been punishable under domestic criminal legislation at the time: the funds in question had been included as expenditure in the State budget, the decisions had been adopted without exceeding the powers granted to the accused under the existing legislation and the provision of such aid was in conformity with the State’s international obligations. Reference was made to this Court’s judgment in the case of Lukanov v. Bulgaria (cited above) where it had been concluded in respect of the same domestic proceedings that:
“... no evidence has been adduced to show that such decisions were unlawful, that is to say contrary to Bulgaria’s Constitution or legislation, or more specifically that the decisions were taken in excess of powers or were contrary to the law on the national budget” (§ 43).
11.  On 16 February and 27 March 2000 the decision of the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office to terminate the proceedings was upheld by the Sofia appellate public prosecutor’s office and the Sofia Court of Appeal, respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  In August 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the State-owned company Kharkivskyi Elektromekhanichnyi Zavod, seeking compensation for loss of a part of his salary due to its delayed payment, and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the respondent’s failure to pay his salary in due time.
6.  On 3 November 2003 the court awarded the applicant 634.03 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in compensation for loss of a part of his salary due to the delay in its payment.
7.  On 25 December 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partially modified that judgment and awarded the applicant an additional UAH 1,072.62[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On the same date the judgment became enforceable.
8.  In January 2004 the applicant and the respondent company appealed in cassation.
9.  In December 2004 the applicant requested the Moskovskyy District Court to issue a writ of execution in his favour.
10.  The court refused to issue a writ of execution on the ground that the case file had been sent to the Supreme Court.
11.  On 7 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of appeal.
12.  On 20 July 2006 the applicant received the writ of execution.
13.  On 27 July 2006 the applicant submitted it to the Bailiffs.
14.  On 12 September 2006 the applicant received the amount awarded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  In 1988 the applicant was recruited by Türkiye Emlak Bankası A.Ş., a state-owned bank (hereinafter “the Bank”). In 1991 he was appointed to the post of deputy director in charge of credit cards.
6.  On an unspecified date, an investigation was carried out as a result of fraudulent acts in the Topkapı branch of the Bank.
7.  On 27 January 1994 the Bank brought an action in the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce claiming compensation from the applicant and seven other employees for having caused losses as a result of irregular transactions.
8.  In June 1995 the Bank filed another action in the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul Court of Commerce claiming more compensation.
9.  On an unspecified date, the two actions were joined at the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce.
10.  On 18 November 1999 the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the labour courts since it concerned a dispute between the employer and employees. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 May 2000.
11.  On 23 October 2001 the Istanbul Labour Court dismissed the action in respect of the applicant and six other employees considering that no fault could be attributed to them. The court however found that the director of the Topkapı branch of the Bank was responsible for the losses in question. It therefore ordered him to pay a certain amount of compensation to the Bank.
12.  Meanwhile, criminal proceedings were brought against the director of the Topkapı branch of the Bank and three other persons for having committed a fraud. The applicant and the Bank intervened in these proceedings as a third party. On 9 July 1999 the Bakırköy Assize Court in Istanbul convicted the director and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment for having abused his duty. It however acquitted the other accused. The applicant appealed against this judgment arguing that the punishment imposed on the director was lenient.
13.  On 29 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the above judgment.
14.  On 31 December 2004 the Bakırköy Assize Court terminated the criminal proceedings against the director since they were time-barred.
6.  The applicant was born in 1986.
7.  On 15 March 1999 an unidentified person or persons placed an advertisement on an Internet dating site in the name of the applicant, who was 12 years old at the time, without his knowledge. The advertisement mentioned his age and year of birth, gave a detailed description of his physical characteristics, a link to the web page he had at the time, which showed his picture, as well as his telephone number, which was accurate save for one digit. In the advertisement, it was claimed that he was looking for an intimate relationship with a boy of his age or older “to show him the way”.
8.  The applicant became aware of the advertisement on the Internet when he received an e-mail from a man, offering to meet him and “then to see what you want”.
9.  The applicant’s father requested the police to identify the person who had placed the advertisement in order to bring charges against that person. The service provider, however, refused to divulge the identity of the holder of the so-called dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) address in question, regarding itself bound by the confidentiality of telecommunications as defined by law.
10.  The police then asked the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) to oblige the service provider to divulge the said information pursuant to section 28 of the Criminal Investigations Act (esitutkintalaki, förundersökningslagen; Act no. 449/1987, as amended by Act no. 692/1997).
11.  In a decision issued on 19 January 2001, the District Court refused since there was no explicit legal provision authorising it to order the service provider to disclose telecommunications identification data in breach of professional secrecy. The court noted that by virtue of Chapter 5a, section 3, of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen; Act no. 450/1987) and section 18 of the Protection of Privacy and Data Security in Telecommunications Act (laki yksityisyydensuojasta televiestinnässä ja teletoiminnan tietoturvasta, lag om integritetsskydd vid telekommunikation och dataskydd inom televerksamhet; Act no. 565/1999) the police had the right to obtain telecommunications identification data in cases concerning certain offences, notwithstanding the obligation to observe secrecy. However, malicious misrepresentation was not such an offence.
12.  On 14 March 2001 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the decision and on 31 August 2001 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
13.  The person who had answered the dating advertisement and contacted the applicant was identified through his e-mail address.
14.  The managing director of the company which provided the Internet service could not be charged, because in his decision of 2 April 2001 the prosecutor found that the alleged offence had become time-barred. The alleged offence was a violation of the Personal Data Act (henkilötietolaki, personuppgiftslagen; Act no. 523/99, which came into force on 1 June 1999). More specifically, the service provider had published a defamatory advertisement on its website without verifying the identity of the sender.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Gdańsk.
6. On 2 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery and theft committed as part of an organised criminal gang.
7.  On 3 March 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered his pre-trial detention. It referred to the likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It further considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by inducing witnesses to give false testimony.
8.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Regional Court several times. The court referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of the case. It relied on the fact that there were no circumstances to justify the application of a different preventive measure.
9.  On 20 November 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) indicted the applicant together with 13 other persons on charges of armed robbery, fraud, destruction of documents and theft committed as part of an organised criminal gang. The prosecutor asked the court to hear evidence from at least 120 witnesses.
10.  The trial began on 17 March 2004. The trial court held on average three hearings per month.
11.  In the course of the trial the applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Regional Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) several times. The court relied on the previous grounds. It also referred to the need to conclude the proceedings and in particular to ensure that the numerous co-accused and witnesses were questioned.
12.  The applicant’s appeals against the decisions extending his detention and against the detention order, and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.
13.  In particular, on 31 July 2006 the applicant made an application for his detention to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. He referred to the fact that his role in the organised criminal gang had been marginal and that the process of obtaining evidence had been successfully completed. On 17 August 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the application.
14.  On 15 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final, as on 28 November 2006 the applicant informed the Gdańsk Regional Court that he would not appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Makhachkala, a city in Dagestan.
5.  A retiree of the Ministry of the Interior, in 2002–04 the applicant contested in court a stoppage of his pension.
6.  On 30 October 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala ordered the Ministry to resume the pension in the amount of 3,004.41 Russian roubles (RUB) per month, to pay arrears in the amount of RUB 94,378.47, and to adjust the arrears for the cost of living by paying RUB 77,331.32. This judgment became binding on 22 January 2003 with the exception of the cost-of-living adjustment, this part of the award having been quashed on appeal.
7.  On 11 March 2003 the District Court once again awarded the cost-of-living adjustment in the same amount. This judgment became binding on 22 March 2003.
8.  On 28 March 2003 the applicant requested bailiffs to enforce the judgment of 30 October 2002. On the Ministry’s request, from 14 May to 30 June 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending proceedings in the Constitutional Court. On 29 July 2003 the judgment was enforced in the part concerning the resumption of the periodic payments.
9.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant requested the bailiffs to enforce the judgment of 11 March 2003.
10.  On 19 April 2004 the applicant requested the bailiffs to enforce the judgment of 30 October 2002 in the part concerning the arrears.
11.  Meanwhile, on 15 November 2003 the Ministry requested a supervisory review of the judgments, and on 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court of Dagestan stayed the enforcement. On 9 September 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the two judgments on supervisory review. The Presidium rejected the applicant’s claim, having found that the court below had misinterpreted material laws concerning the applicant’s entitlement to the pension.
The applicant was absent from this hearing, because he had allegedly not been properly notified of it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Salavat. In 1998–2004 he obtained two judgments against the authorities.
5.  On 2 February 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Ufa awarded the applicant 9,019.88 Russian roubles (“RUB”) in pension arrears against the Ministry of the Interior of Bashkortostan. This judgment became binding on 12 February 1998, but was not enforced immediately. In 2000–2002, the bailiff’s service’s servicing bank had its licence suspended pending insolvency proceedings. On 31 July 2002 the bailiffs made a bank transfer to the applicant, but the transfer failed because of a clerical mistake.
6.  As the applicant believed that the bailiffs had caused the delay, on 15 August 2001 he sued them for the judgment debt and non-pecuniary damages. After two ﬁrst-instance hearings, one appeal hearing, and two supervisory-review hearings, on 18 November 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court partly held for the applicant. It conﬁrmed the bailiffs’ fault, awarded RUB 45,509.20 that included the original judgment debt adjusted for ination and costs, but rejected the claim for non-pecuniary damages.
7.  Both the applicant and the bailiffs appealed against this judgment, but the applicant’s appeal was not accepted because he had missed the time-limit. On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 18 November 2004. The applicant and the bailiffs were absent from this hearing. Earlier the applicant had asked the courts to examine the case in his absence.
8.   On 5 September 2005 the bailiffs enforced the judgment of 2 February 1998.
9.  On 29 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance enforced the judgment of 18 November 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Donetsk of the Rostov Region.
5.  The applicant sued the Donetsk Social Welfare Office («Управление социальной защиты населения г. Донецка») for arrears in child benefits and for compensation of non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 27 December 2000 the Donetsk Town Court of the Rostov Region, composed of a professional judge Mr P. and two lay judges, partly allowed her claims. The judgment became enforceable on 7 January 2001.
7.  On 25 July 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
8.  On 2 October 2002 the Donetsk Town Court, composed of the judge Mr P. and two lay judges, ordered that the Donetsk Social Welfare Office pay the applicant 1,506.27 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately EUR 49) in respect of child benefits adjusted for inflation and legal costs and expenses. The award was payable from the Rostov regional budget. The court rejected the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage.
9.  On 4 December 2002 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable.
10.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant received copies of the judgments of 2 October and 4 December 2002.
11.  On 3 March 2003 she submitted the writ of execution to the respondent authority.
12.  On 15 March 2003 the amount of RUB 292.20 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account pursuant to the judgment in her favour.
13.  On 29 October 2003 the applicant received RUB 467.52 on her bank account.
14.  On 25 November 2003 RUB 651.55 were paid to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 2 October 2002.
15.  On 27 December 2004 the respondent authority paid her the outstanding balance of RUB 95 (approximately EUR 3) - the sum awarded in respect of legal costs and expenses - thus completing full execution of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Volgodonsk, a town in the Rostov Region. In 1999 she lost her home in a terrorist bomb attack.
5.  On 1 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar ordered a local authority to provide the applicant with a flat within three months of the judgment’s entry into force. This judgment entered into force on 19 December 2002.
6.  On 19 February 2003 the District Court clarified the judgment and indicated that the flat had to measure at least 72 m².
7.  In 2002–04 the local authority several times applied for a supervisory review of the judgment, and pending this procedure the enforcement was stayed.
8.  On 12 March 2004 the local authority offered the applicant a flat, but she refused it. On 9 August 2004 the local authority offered another flat (measuring 76.78 m²) and the applicant accepted it. On 28 September 2004 the applicant’s ownership was formalised.
4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Voronezh of the Voronezh Region.
5.  On 4 November 2000 the Talovskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region granted the applicant’s civil action against the Social Welfare Department of the Talovskiy District and awarded her 756.52 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears.
6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 15 November 2000. At some point the domestic court issued the applicant with the writ of execution in respect of the judgment.
7.  At the end of November 2000 the bailiffs received the writ.
8.  At some point in 2001 the bailiffs’ service returned the writ to the applicant without execution, since the respondent authority did not have funds available for enforcement of the applicant’s claim.
9.  It appears that on 9 February 2006 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution to the respondent authority.
10.  On 1 March 2007 the award was paid to the applicant in full.